From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37159 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OW5uI-0004lv-QH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 07:01:43 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1OW5uH-0007td-Hq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 07:01:42 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42643)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1OW5uH-0007tK-9e
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 07:01:41 -0400
Message-ID: <4C330D0C.9050900@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:01:32 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] qemu-img check: Distinguish different
	kinds of errors
References: <1278090900-12832-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>	<1278090900-12832-2-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>
	<87vd8shoib.wl%morita.kazutaka@lab.ntt.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <87vd8shoib.wl%morita.kazutaka@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: MORITA Kazutaka <morita.kazutaka@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 06.07.2010 12:51, schrieb MORITA Kazutaka:
> At Fri,  2 Jul 2010 19:14:59 +0200,
> Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>
>> People think that their images are corrupted when in fact there are just some
>> leaked clusters. Differentiating several error cases should make the messages
>> more comprehensible.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  block.c    |   10 ++++++--
>>  block.h    |   10 ++++++++-
>>  qemu-img.c |   62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>  3 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

>> @@ -453,28 +462,51 @@ static int img_check(int argc, char **argv)
>>      if (!bs) {
>>          return 1;
>>      }
>> -    ret = bdrv_check(bs);
>> -    switch(ret) {
>> -    case 0:
>> -        printf("No errors were found on the image.\n");
>> -        break;
>> -    case -ENOTSUP:
>> +    ret = bdrv_check(bs, &result);
>> +
>> +    if (ret == -ENOTSUP) {
>>          error("This image format does not support checks");
>> -        break;
>> -    default:
>> -        if (ret < 0) {
>> -            error("An error occurred during the check");
>> -        } else {
>> -            printf("%d errors were found on the image.\n", ret);
>> +        return 1;
> 
> Is it okay to call bdrv_delete(bs) before return?  It is necessary for
> the sheepdog driver to pass qemu-iotests.
> 
> Kazutaka

Yes, you're right. Thanks for catching this, I'll send a new version.

Kevin